{"id":296334,"date":"2023-07-08T14:00:41","date_gmt":"2023-07-08T08:30:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=296334"},"modified":"2023-07-08T12:52:44","modified_gmt":"2023-07-08T07:22:44","slug":"whether-thumbs-up-emoji-constitutes-vaild-acceptance-contract-canada-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/08\/whether-thumbs-up-emoji-constitutes-vaild-acceptance-contract-canada-court\/","title":{"rendered":"When a Canadian Court ruled that \u201cthumbs-up\u201d emoji constitutes a valid non-traditional means to convey acceptance of a contract"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

King's Bench for Saskatchewan, Canada: <\/span>An interesting matter involving the laws of contract cropped up before a Canadian Court, wherein they had to determine and interpret the context in which the “Thumbs-Up” \ud83d\udc4d emoji was used in a contract between the parties; that is whether the “thumbs-up” emoji constituted a signature for the purposes of acceptance.<\/p>\n

Based on the peculiar facts of the instant case, T.J. Keene, J.*, readily acknowledged that a \ud83d\udc4d emoji is a non-traditional means to “sign” a document, but nevertheless under these circumstances this was a valid way to convey the two purposes of a “signature”- that is, to identify the signatory and to convey acceptance of the flax contract<\/span>. The Court further found that the flax contract in dispute has met the provisions of Sales of Goods Act, RSS 1978.<\/p>\n

The Court was also of the view that signature in a classic presentation does denote identity and confirmation of an agreement; however, that in itself does not prevent the use of a modern- day emoji such as a \ud83d\udc4d.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/span> <\/span>The plaintiff South West Terminal (SWT) and defendant Achter Land & Cattle Ltd. (Achter) had a long-standing business relationship. SWT claimed the parties entered into a deferred delivery purchase contract (flax contract) on 26-03-2021 in which SWT agreed to buy and Achter agreed to deliver 87 metric tonnes of flax for a contracted price with delivery between 01-11-2021 and November 30, 2021.<\/p>\n

For contractual purposes, Chris Achter was the representative for Achter<\/span> while SWT was being represented by Kent Mickleborough<\/span>.<\/p>\n

However, SWT stated that Kent after communicating with Chris, had a contract drafted. Kent applied his ink signature to the contract, then took a photo of the contract using his cell phone and texted the photo of the contract to Chris Achter on cell phone number, along with the text message: “Please confirm flax contract<\/i>”<\/span>. Chris Achter texted back from his cell number a “thumbs-up” emoji.<\/span><\/p>\n

This is where things get interesting! Achter did not deliver the alleged agreed amount of flax to SWT and disputed the validity of the alleged contract.<\/p>\n

Court's Assessment and Findings:<\/span> <\/span>The Court stated that the instant case is peculiar given the way the alleged acceptance was conveyed. Hence the Court had to determine whether there existed a valid contract between SWT and Achter.<\/p>\n